State wins first two rounds in battle with Globe over ‘golden parachute’ data

Both a Superior Court and Appeals Court judge have refused to grant The Boston Globe a preliminary injunction disclosing the names of public employees who have received separation, severance or settlement agreements.

The Globe sued 10 state agencies earlier this year, claiming that, under the Public Records Law, it was entitled to the names of employees who had received severance and settlement payments worth more than $10,000. The state previously had provided The Globe with the amounts of the severance packages, but had redacted the names, arguing that they were part of the employees’ personnel records and therefore could be kept confidential.

In April, Superior Court Judge Janet L. Sanders declined to issue the preliminary injunction requested by The Globe, finding that the defendants had the right to have the case decided at trial.

“As the defendants point out, the individual interests at stake here are not insignificant: with many of the agreements containing confidentiality clauses, it is apparent that one of the benefits the departing employee expected to receive in resolving his or her claim was to limit the information made available to future employers. To disclose this information without a full consideration of all the issues at stake would be unfair to these individuals and would result in an irrevocable loss of the privacy they bargained for,” Sanders wrote.

Making the names public could also “undermine the agency’s ability to resolve claims without expensive litigation: arguably, there is a public interest in promoting such out of court resolution,” Sanders added.

Appeals Court Judge R. Marc Kantrowitz refused to overturn Sanders’ ruling. He said she was correct in finding that releasing the names would mean that, should the defendants ultimately prevail, “such result would be rendered meaningless.”

I agree with the court in California. As long as severance and settlement packages are funded with tax dollars, the public has a right to know what they are and that right should override individual privacy concerns. Perhaps a retiree should be given the right to petition the court to prevent disclosure in certain, limited, circumstances. In general, however, the public’s right to know should supersede and individual’s right to privacy.